REPORT OF THE OVERSIGHT TOUR UNDERTAKEN TO SWARTKLIP PRODUCTS BY THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE ON 10 NOVEMBER 2004.

A. Introduction

  1. The aims of oversight visit were to;
  1. inspect health, safety and security standards, in relation to the workforce and the surrounding communities,
  2. assess the feasibility of moving the facility, and
  3. tour the facility, especially the production, storage areas and the perimeter to assess the proximity of the plant to the community.
  1. Delegation

    2. The delegation consisted of the following members:

    Prof K Asmal, MP-ANC (delegation leader and chairperson of the Committee; Dr GW Koornhof, MP-ANC; Mr LN Diali, MP-ANC; Ms XC Makasi, MP-ANC; Mr SB Ntuli, MP-ANC; Mr MR Shah, MP-DA; Mr VB Ndlovu, MP-IFP; Mr G Campher (staff); Mr ET Lourens (staff) and Mr M Zamisa, Parliamentary Officer of the Department of Defence.

  2. Swartklip Staff

The Committee was led through the discussion by;

Mr J Beckett - Acting General Manager (Denel – Western Cape)

Mr E Mkuchane - Head of Group Communications

Ms M Barnard - Communication Practitioner (Denel – Western Cape)

Mr B Mtutle - Manager of Group Government Relations

B. Briefing

(a) Introduction

Swartklip Products (hereafter Swartklip) was founded in 1948 as Ronden Fireworks (Pty) Ltd. It was bought by Armscor in 1971 and transferred to Denel in 1992. Swartklip, in Mitchells Plain, was a subsidiary of Denel (Pty) Ltd., but after restructuring it amalgamated with Somchem in Somerset West, to form Denel Western Cape.

The products of Swartklip are used for the commercial, military and rock-breaking purposes. These products include small calibre ammunition, as well as high explosive and pyrotechnic products. Swartklip is the world leader in 40mm low and high velocity ammunition rounds. It exports 90% of its products; 70% is military and the rest is commercial.

 

 

The surrounding communities of Khayalitsha and Mitchells Plain had been encroaching on the facility, due to rapid urbanization, especially in the 1990’s. This resulted in the facility becoming a health and safety risk to these communities.

 

(b) Output

Swartklip Products has a workforce of 554 employees of which 80% was black. According to Swartklip their contributions to the community, included a counselling centre, a community and personal training and development centre, as well as assistance with small and medium enterprise development and driver training for workers.

According to Swartklip the turnover was R208 million in 1999/2000, with a net profit of R9 million. The labour cost was 20%. In 2003/04, the turnover was R478 million, with a net profit of R54 million. The labour cost was 16%.

 

(c) Safety, Health and Environment.

Swartklip’s property covered about 517 hectares and there are different bird and plant species.

Swartklip received the ISO 14001 certificate in 2001. A requirement for this environment certificate was the existence of an integrated waste management system. This system was approved in 1996-1998. The 5 star NOSA certificate, a safety rating, funded by the industry, was received in 2000.

Swartklip has a full-time Occupational Health Practitioner on site and a community consultative forum to address matters of safety and health. The Committee was informed that injuries on duty were minimal, but studies indicated that some retired workers have developed asthma and cancer, which were the main diseases. Swartklip is monitoring this situation.

Applications were submitted to the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the local municipalities to build an incinerator to reduce air pollution from the open burning of heavy metals. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism would release the report of the independent inquiry into this matter by January 2005.

Another option was to remove the facility, which would address the encroachment problem by the surrounding community. According to Swartklip feasibility studies however indicated that relocation was a risk, due to the huge capital outlay and the accompanying cash flow implications.

C. Discussion

The Committee understands that there is pressure for the relocation of Swartklip. It is however a contradiction that Swartklip plans to build an incinerator and also wants to relocate. It also applied in 2003 to have a part of the area rezoned for light industrial and housing purposes.

Another issue was whether an independent evaluation was made of ground water and soil pollution. Swartklip indicated that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) did not find any pollution from a borehole that was drilled into the aquafer.

A venting system failure led to the release of gas into the atmosphere on 6 August 2003. The Committee was informed that the impact of the pollution was minimal on the community, especially school children. Swartklip indicated that they have addressed the fault and offered to bear the community’s medical expenses. Swartklip’s report on this incident would be forwarded to the Committee.

D. Findings
  1. The communities were too close to the perimeter of Swartklip, with the result that any accident at Swartklip would have a big impact on the community.
  2. The facility was not secure, as the community entered it regularly to collect firewood.
  3. Swartklip is an important institution in the Mitchell’s Plain area as an employer and corporate benefactor.
  4. Swartklip’s products are sold internationally and earn valuable foreign currency from exports.

 

E. Recommendations

The delegation wishes to make the following recommendations, that;

  1. the security around the facility should be improved to ensure the safety and integrity of the establishment. There were too many gaps in the fences.
  2. the stakeholders at local community level, as well as local, provincial and national government level should be fully informed of the possible relocation plans; in terms of the financial risk and loss of jobs, but also the possibility of accessing the land for housing or a community park and the benefits to the environment,
  3. independent testing should be done to assess the pollution of the underground water and the soil.
  4. a report on occupational safety and the treatment of injured workers, past and present at Swartklip should be submitted to the Committee.
  5. the Committee should also visit Somchem in the Somerset area, which is similar to Swartklip Products.

 

F. Conclusion

Swartklip Products is a technologically advanced company that is of strategic importance to the state, but its location has become a threat to the surrounding communities. It has to balance its mission with the needs of the environment and the communities. Feasibility studies should ascertain the risks of (1) further investments in its current location and (2) possible relocation.